MUSEUM AND GYMNASIUMS (AMEND- MENT) BILL.— [H.L.] (Hansard, 30 May 1895)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)
who remarked that, when the Bill was last before their Lordships, the question was raised whether it was competent for this House to consider the Bill, or whether, on the ground of privilege, the Bill could only be dealt with by the other House. He had looked into the matter, and undoubtedly there were certain Clauses of the Bill which were Privilege Clauses and which could not be dealt with in this House. They would have to be treated in the ordinary way as Privilege Clauses and they were those which determined how any expenses under the Act were to be raised. Subject to these Privilege Clauses he did not think the Bill in any way infringed any of the Privileges of the other House, and he had reason to think that view was taken by the authorities in the other House also. The Bill empowered public bodies to do certain things, but they would not necessarily cast any burdens on the rates or affect the incidence of rating, and therefore he did not think they would be a breach of Privilege.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (the EARL OF MORLEY)
pointed out that Clause 9 of the Bill amended the Open Spaces Act from 1877 to 1890, although in the title of the Bill itself, which referred to Museums and Gymnasiums, there was nothing to indicate this. He suggested that such Amendment should be effected by a separate Bill, bearing some indication on the face of it of what its intention was. As he understood, the officers of the other House did not object to the Bill with the excision of the taxing clauses. He hardly thought it would be necessary to press the question of Privilege to the extreme.

§ LORD HALSBURY
observed that his principal objection to the Bill was, that it gave the power of imposing additional taxation upon the ratepayers by clauses of reference without giving notice of what was going to be done.

§ LORD THRING
objected to referential or obscure clauses as much as anyone, but he did not think that this Bill carried out its purposes either in an unfair or obscure way. When it stated that a particular body should have the power under another Act to add to their existing powers, he thought that was a fair mode of dealing with the question. Though he had a repugnance to obscure clauses, he did not think that that objection applied to this Bill; and with respect to the question of Privilege, he had known numerous Bills exactly in this form passed with the assent of the House of Commons.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
intimated that, with regard to Clause 9, he doubted whether that could be dealt with by their Lordships. It transferred the powers of the Open Spaces Acts from one authority to another. That might include powers of payment, and it would be better to deal with the matter by putting the Expenses Clause among the Privileges Clauses.

§ LORD THRING
I object to Clause 9.

§ LORD HALSBURY
said, he should withdraw his objection now until the Third Reading of the Bill, when he should be able to see what was left in the measure.

§ LORD HAWKESBURY
expressed regret that, owing to other duties on Monday, he was unavoidably prevented from getting to this House until too late to be present when the Second Reading of the Bill was moved. The question of Privilege had already been dealt with by the Lord Chancellor, and so he would refer to the general principle of the Bill. Clauses 1–8 inclusive extended the power of urban authorities so as to enable them to provide and maintain winter gardens, and conferred on the vestries and district boards in the Metropolis and the Woolwich District Council the powers of an urban authority as regarded the provision of museums and gymnasiums and winter gardens. The general principle of these clauses was accepted by the Local Government Board, although on some minor points some Amendments 601 may be necessary at a later stage of the Bill. As regarded Clause 9, by which it was proposed that the powers of a local authority under the Open Spaces Act, 1887–90, should be conferred on County Councils, it was to be observed that by the Metropolitan Open Spaces Act, 1887, the Metropolitan Board of Works (now the London County Council) were empowered to acquire by purchase or gift and hold open spaces for public exercise and recreation; and by Section 12 of the Open Spaces Act, 1887, to purchase or lease, and maintain or contribute to the maintenance of public walks or pleasure grounds. The Metropolitan Open Spaces Act, 1881, enabled the trustees of open spaces acting under a local Act, and other owners of open spaces, to transfer them to the vestry or district board, or the Metropolitan Board of Works. It also authorised the transfer of disused burial-grounds to such authorities, for the purpose of being maintained as open spaces. These enactments were extended to urban and rural sanitary authorities (now urban and rural District Councils) by Section 5 of the Open Spaces Act, 1887, but in the case of a rural sanitary authority the Section required that the authority should first be invested by an Order of the Local Government Board with the powers of the Act. By a Bill now before the House of Commons, which had been introduced by the Government, it was proposed that the powers of a rural District Council under these Acts might be exercised whether the Council had been invested with powers under the Acts by an Order of the Board or not. Seeing that, under the existing law, provision had been made under which all urban and rural district councils might exercise powers under the Open Spaces Acts, there did not appear to be any necessity to confer like powers in respect of the same districts on the County Councils. It appeared undesirable that this concurrent jurisdiction should be given to the County Councils. If the powers were exercised by the County Council, the charge must either be borne by the whole county or by the particular locality; and if it were to be borne by the particular district, it would appear that the authority of that district should be the authority for the purpose 602 of these Acts, and should carry out their provisions. Whilst concurring in the Second Reading of the Bill, it must not be understood that the proposals in the concluding clause had the concurrence of the Government.

THE EARL OF MEATH,
in reply, expressed his readiness to yield to the desire of those Lords who wished Section 9 to be cut out. At the same time he thought there was some excuse for putting in the section, inasmuch as the Open Spaces Acts permitted in the open air gymnasia, and also conservatories, which would be practically winter gardens, in parks and public gardens. There was some slight connection between these matters, but he acknowledged it would be better to have a separate Bill if it were thought necessary that this subject should come before Parliament again. He knew there was a desire in the case of some County Councils to obtain these powers. It was only the previous day that the Chairman of the Middlesex County Council called upon him to express his great desire that this particular clause should pass, because, he said, he was continually being asked by the local authorities in his district when they wanted open spaces why the Middlesex County Council should not have the power enjoyed by the London County Council of giving half the purchase money for the purpose of assisting local bodies in adding to their parks.